Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>]

On 1/7/19 8:48 PM, Eldon Koyle wrote:

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:

On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:

On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):

On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:

[systemd stuff]

[systemd stuff]

<snip>

The process that was followed was:

  - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
    default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
  - the TC decided.
  - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
    GR.

I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
decision that they disagree with.

Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
"personalized."

Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the
decision, who did not have a seat at the table.  Those of us who rely on
Debian in production, for example.  Upstream developers for another.
Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a
"franchise," others found out after the fact.  Seems to me that lack of
representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.

I think one of the reasons Debian is able to function as well as it has is
because they aren't required to put stuff out to a vote from the entire
planet.  Having technical people (developers) make technical decisions
seems appropriate, even if you disagree with the decision as a user.

On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on contentious issues.  Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership, lots of stakeholders, all held together by agreements, with the decision processes open to pretty much anybody who shows up.  The process puts pretty much everyone else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.

There are just as many people who would be griping about sysvinit at this
juncture.  Yes, it was nice to know what your init system was doing, but
there are a lot of features that are not provided by sysvinit but are provided
by systemd.

I'm hesitant to re-litigate the issue, but it's not about "know(ing) what your init system is doing," it's about impacts on both those of us who must administer systems, and on upstream developers.  To an awful lot of us, the added features of systemd add nothing, but the impacts are major, and damaging.

It continues to amaze me how much the interests of packagers dominate Debian, pushing aside the interests of those who actually develop code, and those who use it.  Yes, APT is great, and perhaps the primary selling point of Debian - but only up to a point. 

<snip>

To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
else get their way.

To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.

Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
personally had been consulted.  But that doesn't scale, and provides no
basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.

Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and
governance processes, I disagree, on all points.  I also suggest that
your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done
better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.

I think part of the toxicity is inherent in communicating via a mailing list.

It is very easy to feel attacked when someone points out a problem with
your argument (especially if you disagree with their counterpoints) -- even
more so when you have spent hours trying to make a logical argument that
hopefully won't offend anyone.

Maybe - but we've kind of grown up in this world.  A lot of us in the networking world like to quote Postel's law:  "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."  I've always found that it applies very well to email communication.  Unfortunately, it strikes me that people have become awfully touchy, and quick to take offense, these days.  Personally, I find it more uncivil when people take offense, than when people give it.

(It's worth noting that while "fighting words" are recognized, under some circumstances, as an exception to the 1st Amendment, it's pretty hard to avoid legal liability for violently responding to fighting words.  "Them's fighting words," and "them's fighting words, asshole," are legitimate responses.  Punching the asshole in the face is going to get you arrested.  Then again, calling a ref. a motherf*r, will get you thrown out of the game.)

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra